OK, the Ashes are gone and it's time for a post mortem. Congratulations to the England team - but I think they will admit that their side isn't the strongest one they have fielded. In the stats and averages, the Australians looked dominant in terms of volume of runs, centuries scored, and wickets per bowler. But it didn't translate into victories. Here's ten reasons it went pear-shaped...
1. Failure to win in Cardiff. One wicket was all that seperated the two teams in the end. Australia were dominant in Cardiff and couldn't finish them off. Lack of a quality experienced spinner and some strange captaincy on the last day helped England.
2. Mitchell Johnson at Lords. What went wrong? I am still shaking my head in disbelief. Johnson looked like a moody teenager and bowled like he was bowling with the wrong arm. Strauss was gifted a century, England were gifted a very large and rapid first innings total - and we never looked in it from there.
3. Batting collapses in the first innings three times. Killed us at Lords. Got us in a spot of bother at Edgbaston. Killed us again at the Oval. North, Ponting and Clarke got big runs, but failed when the chips were down.
4. No quality spinner. Without a really viable spinning option, Ponting had nowhere to turn to when the batsmen get set, or when one of his pacemen has an off day. In the end, it was absurd to play four quicks at the Oval.
5. Michael Hussey. Sorry Mr Cricket, but you were a big gimme in the middle of the batting order. You made runs when it didn't matter anymore and got ducks when it really did matter. You were a passenger, basically.
6. Bowling on Strauss's pads. Why do this? He's good - but not THAT good. Gifted far too many easy runs.
7. Variety in the England bowling attack. No single bowler was dominant. But each of them took a turn - Flintoff at Lords, Anderson at Edgbaston, Broad at the Oval with Swann.
8. Late order England runs. The sight of Swann and Broad swinging the bat is enough to give me nightmares. Prior, Bopara, Collingwood, Cook and Bell were disasters for England. But it didn't matter in the end.
9. Inability to play swing bowling. Not quite as pronounced as in 2005, it was still the case that the Aussie batsmen were vulnerable to inswinging deliveries.
10. Some WOEFUL umpiring. Not decisive, perhaps, but certainly there were some embarassing decisions against the Aussies. Phillip Hughes got at least two, and he only batted three times. Not easy to build confidence - or large scores - with trigger happy umps.
10 comments:
A list of ten reasons we lost the Ashes with only a passing mention of Ponting's dubious grasp of strategy is no list at all... my list has one point. And the blame has to rest on Ponting, as a captain he is woeful.
He's a beautiful batsman to watch. I'd trade half his shots for the ability to manage his bowlers and get his batsmen to not throw their wickets away. It's time to take stock and realise that chasing fast runs is leading to ruin.
But I like the list. Enough to comment.
As with Nathan above, I see there's no mention of captain or selectors. But I particularly agree with 1, 3 & 4.
Yes, I very sad time for Aussie sport right now. The cricket and the rugby. As those Saffies would say: 'shame eh'.
I'm with Nathan - Ponting's gotta go. Ever since the Bourbon incident the writing was on the wall.
The glorious uncertainty (from a Calvinist perspective) of sport.
Key moments, including four tosses, went against the Australians.
The selectors should be considered.
English conditions seem to need tall fast bowlers who can hit the pitch at speed or, if lacking height, can swing a ball at some pace.
Fast bowlers who lack height or have low actions and do not move the ball will struggle.
Having a spinner would have helped. Listening to Warne and MacGill commentating reminded me that both could have probably walked straight on and made a difference.
The treatment of Jason Kreja is a mystery.
They seem to be chasing a successful combination instead of building one.
The search for an all-rounder is another case in point. There were three in the original squad.
Philip Hughes should not have been dropped. His 'problems with the short ball' were really one inspired spell from Flintoff.
The lack of any back up batsman was odd.
For all that it was close, closer than 2005 when 2-1 flattered Australia. This time the score flattered the home team.
Still, England will be out here in eighteen months or so.
Ponting's captaincy is poor (and always has been), but on this occasion it really wasn't the biggest factor. Selection is another matter.
Hubris. From the very top. England is not our nemesis. We were the better team by a county mile. We should have won. But too much time at the hairdresser and car showroom and jewellers has made us soft in the head and, apart from 1 or 2, scared of a scrap. If Clarke is Ponting's successor then we're doomed for more than just this administration.
Commiserations Australia from an Englishman. You're countrymen played honorably. The stats are in your favour, but the comment above I think gets to the heart of it - England weren't frightened of a scrap while the Aussies were (discounting the Headingley Test!).
Cricket isn't just about statistics. It's about performing when it counts, when the most pressure is on; it's about guts and holding your nerve; it's about teamwork and team spirit. And it was England who had those qualities on this occassion.
And don't forget that we didn't have Kevin Peterson and Flintoff was unfit throughout the series!
But the real test we be when we go down to you in eighteen months...
If the players turn down your bribe, perhaps try the umpire... :)
Victory is sweet. Enjoying your time of painful reflection. David
Nice summary, Michael.
Obviously the batting let us down at crucial moments - it's almost as if 2005 didn't happen.
We really need to be smarter about approaching the Ashes in England, conditions are so different that form in Australia or South Africa is not necessarily an indicator of possible success on English pitches. Experience in the conditions should be set at a premium. No surprise that Marcus North did so well. But I suppose the problem is county cricket pales in comparison with the IPL.
Perhaps the same applies to bowlers, viz. Johnson, although I think he's got tremendous talent.
We're clearly missing the likes of McGrath & Warne - decisive match winners.
In the end I think the selectors have a bit to answer for. Why didn't they play Hauritz in the Oval test? Would it have turned the match? No. But so obvious it leads me to doubt their competency.
And persisting with Hussey when, with a bi tof juggling in the order, there are so many worthy contenders in the wings makes no sense.
Ah, 20/20 hindsight, it's a wonderful thing!
Post a Comment